The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

[FlashDangerpants]

That's a bit of a bromide, can you illustrate with any specifics?

Probably. But it would not influence you. It is an “intuitive” understanding on my part. Simply put, over the last 30-40 years American culture has been radicalized from more culturally-conservative bases. My parent’s generation witnessed and participated in that radicalization. (But I’d not say it was all bad).

Therefore, I assume a general process that can be noted over the last 150 years. A general cultural conservatism has been “engineered” and the evidence of this is all around us.

Any validity in that view, according to you?

These intuitive arguments have the problem that they are tremendously persuasive to people who already beleive them, but kinda stupid to everyone else. That's why I rarely argue about whether God exists or not, both sides of that one are prone to the same series of self infatuated errors.

In this case, I get it but I find your interpretive framework dubious. As Karl Popper said, history does not run on rails. We can predict the tides because they follow rules and patters we can analyse with great precision, but the movements of societies and their beliefs are not that sort of system. Centuries of revolutionaries attempting to recreate each other's revolutions ought to have taught us by now the futility of treating culture as a closed system with an input and an output that can be fully known.

But let's give that sort of historicism a shot anyway. I think I can trigger Veggie and Mannie no end with this one, so there's some entertainment to be had. I will speculate that the big changes you hint at that are safest for us to discuss would largely revolve around families and the decline thereof. So let's do the whole Marx style magnificent sweep of history. I'm unsold that 150 years or 50 are adequate, let's go big.

Prior to the invention of agriculture and husbandry, we don't have the nuclear family at all, humans wander around in extended family groups and do the hunter gatherer thing. Then 7,000 or so years ago, the hunter Gs gtet replaced by herders and weeders and fence builders who live in houses. I'm gonna just assume that the nuclear family comes into existence along with the farmstead. I doubt we have much to say about the division of labour within the farmsteads other than that everybody worked every day including the children and the wives, but I think we do know that the menfolk fucked off hunting a lot and that the longer distance trading was a manly activity too. So let's assume for the sake of argument that sexism as a modern institution begins with the invention of the kitchen and the bedroom.

Then the evolution of cities occurs and kingdoms and stuff. Some early societies were matriarchal, but from the start, and increasingly with time, patriarchy largely dominated. Women gained direct political or military power only rarely, but were often influential as mothers, regents, wives or courtesans. This became the tradition and the law more or less globally as far as I know.

Similarly the role of offspring in general presumably changed little from 4,000 BCE to 1,600 CE. Sons did the inheriting, daughters got married out. Sons of kings inherited thrones; sons of lords inherited lands; sons of merchants and tradesmen got apprenticed out; while both sons and daughters of farmers worked the fields.

Where do we look for the first significant changes to this landscape? The spark of the modern, or for your purpose perhaps, the start of the fall?

As far as I can see, for this and all the other stuff you are angsty about, it's the printing press that starts all your problems. That's the thing that you can blame for all the religious heresies like Protestantism which spread in the early modern period. It's the printing of Bibles that made everyone want their kids to learn to read properly, and the reduced cost of producing books that leads to the expansion of society upending fiction.

If you are inclined to the sort of historicism that sees in the women's movement of the 60s some inevitable collapse of the family and some unavoidable social tragedy that needs no further explanation once those bra-burners ahve done their work, then you may as well push that back the publication of the Vindication of the Rights of Woman, and from there you really must push it back to Cervantes and his wickedly shrewd romances. And then it's a Gutnberg thing really.

[promethean75]

"I am focused on Neo-Marxism and Frankfurt School Marxism and the Critical Theories in general."

You just got finished readin' some Marxian historian -- Pete Garrison probably.

That's gonna last until next year -- you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.

[Immanuel Can]

I assumed you were doing the conspiracy theory that NATO caused the Ukraine war.

Well, NATO is the U.S. Let's not kid ourselves. The rest are about as threatening as a mean little kid with a slingshot, including the UK. Only one power is in the same league as Russia.

And Nigel Farage was warning NATO a decade ago to stop aggitating Putin by messing about in Ukraine. They didn't listen, and Putin reacted, and now the world is paying for his dictatorship and the stupidity of the politicians who made the war happen...especially those with untalented sons mysteriously given plumb positions on energy boards in Ukraine, while simultaneously selling access to "the Big Guy".

That should helpfully narrow the focus.

Meanwhile, we should all ask who's actually footing the bill for that war, and which politicians are going to end it as soon as they're elected -- and Americans should seriously consider voting for them, whichever party they come from.

That's a tangle of multiple conspiracy theories...

Well, "conspiracy theory" is exactly the favourity Leftist nullification strategy when it comes to theories they don't want aired: they just damn it as a "conspiracy theory," and hope that people will be ashamed of thinking it, and withdraw.

But it's actually pretty simple: there is no longer any need for NATO: the Cold War is over. There was no good reason for the Bidens or the US to be in Ukraine, anymore than Biden's son to be 'consulting' to Burisma, and receiving what were clearly bribes from them, for a job for which he was utterly unqualified and incapable. And there's no good reason for America to be paying for a foreign war in a place in which they have no national interest. There's no good reason for the Democrats (publicly-admitted) bio-labs to be in Ukraine. And there's no reason for Putin to be there, if NATO hadn't been threatening to absorb Ukraine in its own sphere of influence, either. And Biden's setting of "regime change" as the horizon of the war inevitably would mean a nuclear conflict...so we'd better pray that his poking of a madman does not get a whole lot of us nuked.

There are politicians who want to end this war. The people don't want this war. Ukrainians and Russians don't need to keep dying. And Americans don't need to keep paying. And the world does not need to keep suffering because millionaire megalomaniacs want to play the game of global utopianism, even if it kills us all.

[Wizard22]

Your ignorance is astounding. The constitution prevents a third term you total fuckwit..

What make you think you can comment when you know so little?

THird term? Did you have to look it up moron?

The ANSWER the question. one or two of the best most experienced politicians

THis is because smart governement uses expertise.
Trump is a failure because almost none of his cabinet survived for more than a few weeks.
Trump is a megalomanic who thinks he knows everything, but he thought is was still in "The Apprentice".


Evidence. ( i know evidence upsets you)
Obama's cabinet (second term)

Certainly, here is a list of key members of President Barack Obama's cabinet during his second term (2013-2017):

Whose ignorance?

https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-tran ... nistration

As President-elect Joe Biden crafts his Cabinet and White House team of advisers, he has pledged to make it the most diverse team in history. But in his picks so far, there is one thing that most of his team will have in common: service in the Obama administration.

[Wizard22]

So this one is fair game, right? He can just face the music for this and you are ok with that, if the evidence goes against him and the jury finds for the DA.

No, Trump is an elected President of the United States.

It is purely politically motivated. And you're a gaslighter, Accuser.

[Wizard22]

Immanuel Can pretending to be neutral is the most absurd thing I've seen this week

Yep, another one. He's on a roll. He appears to be testing how far he can ride absurdity in every direction.

Don't you have some LGBTQMAP+ books to hide in Kindergarten and grade school libraries???

Get out of my thread if you can't contribute.

[Wizard22]

And now he's talking about the "you strategy" because he can't level the fraudulent ad hominem accusation he normally relies on any more.

I've never seen anybody, on the dozens of philosophy forums I've frequented, Ad Hom half as much as you. He's right about you, Accuser.

You pretty much never argue to the point, only against the person.

[Wizard22]

AJ you're lookin at everything all loopy in that last post. The destabilizing effects of Marxism are found only in the manifesto and other articles about worker revolution. That's neither here nor there. That part of marxism is not the historical materialism part of marxism that doesn't promote destabilizing forces but instead accurately notes and describes them, ironically (for u), in a way as close as possible to scientific and objective descriptions as u can get.

Which part of a... say, 19th century factory lockout and violent strike that ensues, would be the destabilizing force most responsible for the conflict? The conditions the workers were already in and the circumstances they faced or the nerve of them to refuse to starve to death from low wages?

And when leon trizzle says international he means the world as a single democratic proletarian class would organize itself and effectively run the world.

But when a neocon says international he means imperialism.

These two aren't even in the same book forget the same page. How in sam hill could u have made an association between those two ideologies? Absolutely shameless.

Do you yet realize the American "working-class" switched during the Obama Administration?

Democrats are now fueled and funded by the Bourgeois (social media and tech).

[Wizard22]

If the foundations are rotten enough then the tools required to destailize them don't need to be either sophisticated or strong. Wizzard and IC have been blathering over the white picket fences and Howdy Doody of some imagined lost paradise where everyone was righteous and God fearing so it was all ok. That was never true, and attempts to resurrect it are doomed.

Case in point: People like IC probably contribute significantly to the reasons why Christianity is in decline in America, they have enslaved their God to their politics and that's kind of ugly. You don't need to look to Marx to explain why Jebus is losing his value, you can look at Mannie. And I guess all those priests who touched the kiddies for decades without punishment too.

It was always true. Liberal-Leftists saw how good WASP-Americans had it...and true to your nature, rather than want it for yourselves, rather than copy it, instead you choose to attack and destroy it, replace with your Globohomo-Multi-Kulti. You are an agent of destruction, desecration, and chaos.

You are the reason that they deserve protection, and to be defended from.

[Wizard22]

That's self-defeating really.

You want to debate some point or other? I have no idea as of right now if you guys are saying that Trump should not be prosecuted because he didn't commit any crime, or that he shouldn't be prosecuted because you don't want him to be held accountable if he did commit a crime.

Wizzard made a sort of effort to argue both at once with some conspiracy theory about all the judges being Democrats including the ones on the Supreme Court that Trump appointed to it. You got some position less dumb than that?

Quit being retarded, illiterate, and incontinent, Poopants.

My arguments refuted yours entirely. Trump's court cases against the Democrats were never heard, evidence never brought forth to trial. Then you, idiotically, claimed that "all the courts ruled against him even his own appointees". So you're either ignorant, or knowingly a liar. It's hard to pick with you, since when your points are defeated, you quickly turn to Ad Hom-ing.

[Wizard22]

When Trump is in jail and the Republicans chose someone else, deserting him like rats, what will VA, Wizzard, Veggie and Immanuel do?

There must be a precendent such as what happened in Germany in 1945.
I understand thousands of Germans lived out thier lives in complete denial and cogniive dissonance, whilst the following generation Were tutored in the aegis of De-Nazification.
Is there more pain to come, or has Trump breathed his last?

Easy...I gather the crew, call-up homeboy Prom our getaway driver, and we break him outta the slammer.

[Wizard22]

I STILL have no idea as of right now if you guys are saying that Trump should not be prosecuted because he didn't commit any crime, or that he shouldn't be prosecuted because you don't want him to be held accountable if he did commit a crime.

Maybe try suppressing your urge to Ad Hom, and ask us directly?

Did I not already answer, with my previous question, which you balked? How many times have former US presidents been indicted and/or imprisoned?

Remember that question? Remember that answer?


Zero, so how is this not purely political motivation, alone?

[Wizard22]

Some were socially conservative up to a point, particulalry Edmund Burke who can truly be said to have straddled both the Conservative and Liberal movements in his day. But the true Liberals were more in line with Mill who wrote in On Liberty about "experiments in living" which pretty much means you get to choose how you live your life (and pursue happiness etc) without anyone having any right to apply social pressure, let alone state intervention.

If the topic is IC’s political stance — I would say he is Liberal-Conservative (slightly right of center) — then my opinion doesn’t change. But political categories seem to be in some upheaval generally. And it is confusing.

Wow, he's quite the man of opposites, in your imagination at least. But if he was, as you described him... "quite classically Liberal" he would definitely criticise trump for the classically illiberal trade policies if nothing else. These include (off the top of my head) his multiple impsitions of mercantillist tariffs; his similarly mercantillist reasons for assaulting the WTO and NAFTA (trade liberals think the rules based system of international free trade is a huge net positive for humanity at large); all of the wall stuff. Not to mention all of the immigration stuff, especially that Islamic immigration "shut down" he promised. Such a classical Liberal would also criticise Biden for maintaining too many of those illiberal trade policies.
IC challenges people to come up with anything bad Trump has done. As you can see, an actual classical Liberal would have no difficulty finding genuine objections to Trump.

I leave it to others to consider whether a real conservative would find it difficult to criticise a man who has cheated on each of his three wives.

If the topic is What is the cause of “the mess” we find ourselves in, then I am still inclined to place more emphasis on progressive- and radical-leftism. So his statement (with qualification) makes sense to me.

Some were socially conservative up to a point, particulalry Edmund Burke who can truly be said to have straddled both the Conservative and Liberal movements in his day. But the true Liberals were more in line with Mill who wrote in On Liberty about "experiments in living" which pretty much means you get to choose how you live your life (and pursue happiness etc) without anyone having any right to apply social pressure, let alone state intervention.

My take is that these Liberalisms functioned sanely (if that is the word) because culture generally was grounded in conservative principles.

That's a bit of a bromide, can you illustrate with any specifics?

There seems to be a point where Liberalism becomes Hyper-Liberalism because it has altered or destroyed those bases in defined values that allowed Liberal flourishing. Then it seems to move in perverse directions and to call forth reaction.

If you start with some Hegelian assumptions I suppose you can assume that too. But if you attempt to clumsily naturalise "good" into "tradition" on a philosophy forum somebody should have enough knowledge to make that difficult for you.

Where were you self-proclaimed "liberals" when all Republicans-Conservatives were getting silenced across social media the last 8 years, or during the covid pandemic?

I thought you "liberals" were supposed to be Free-Speech...?

No, wait, it's a matter of Convenience...free speech for you, but not your political opposition. Right?

[Wizard22]

I feel you have some different takes to me on what good and bad are, but whatever...

• He's done a pretty decent job mending various alliances, but that's mainly NATO and Putin made it suddenly vital again in a way that mere diplomacy never would have, nonetheless, decent work. Similarly his diplomatic outreach in Asia is going well with some free trade agreements and good work in Hanoi and Tokyo. For all the people who worry a lot about the rise of China, that's all good stuff.

• The Inflation Reduction Act is much too protection oriented for my tastes, but it creates jobs and promotes investment in growth sectors and all the people who stress about where manufacturing happens should like it (unless they are Germans, in which case they will have to lump it).

• He managed to get a Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal through a brutal recidivist Congress which is something of an achievement by itself. It contains funding to end the problem of America still having lead water pipes, which is something that really should have been dealt with in the 1970s not the 2020s. That alone (exclusive of the other trillion dollars for repairing dangerous infrastructure) should count as a good thing even to the most absurdly rabid partisan...

If he commits any felonies, I see no reason why a fairly ok economic performance should save his from going to jail though.

Nobody has done more for Putin and the CCP, than the Biden Administration, which directly caused the formation of BRICS.

BRICS would not exist, without a weak, Democrat dement--...I mean"leadership".

[Wizard22]

But presidents don't have any influence over inflation anyway.

Wrong, the US Dollar is still hinged upon price per barrel of oil.

One of the first things the Biden Administration did, was to end gas & oil leases across the US, causing a spike in gas prices. High gas prices per gallon pressurizes inflation forces by how everybody in the country needs to spend more.

Secondly, his FED appointee, Janet Yellen, has printed more money than ever before, in the shortest time.